Actually, most people in the "know" on both sides of the Diana/Charles "war" agree that it was Diana who took lovers outside the marriage first not Charles. Whether or not he pushed her out of his bed and affections therby contributing to her need to seek attention elsewhere is another matter.

One thing is certain Diana needed to be the absolute center of the world to each man she was involved with very few men can provide this - even the ordinary men - and especially not The Prince of Wales or a busy physican. She expected a man&#39;s whole world to stop for her and then revolve around her. Charles expected a similar devotion but not merely to himself. Their marriage was doomed before it began because Charles did not love her and wouldn&#39;t love her in the passionate since that couples require and because Diana was too emotionally needy and insecure. They placed absolute unrealistic demands and responsibilities on each other before they were ever married. They were simply not compatible.

I think Camilla is Charles&#39; soul mate and I think it was Hasnat Khan who was Diana&#39;s. Dodi was just a means to make Hasnat jealous. It would have never ended the way Mohammed Al-Fayed says it would have.

Charles and Diana are equally to blame for their disasterous marriage as are all of the many extra marital lovers that were included. There were many more than the mere 3 people Diana claims was in there marriage. Charles and Camilla and Janet while Diana had the bodygaurd, Hewit, Hoare, rugby boy, Khan, ect.... There were lots of people involved but it only took two to end the marriage, and they were the two who took the vows.

What I can&#39;t understand is why people think the fault only rests with Charles and Camilla. I can&#39;t fathom that and I am the biggest Diana fan in the world. Albeit, one with a realistic not perfect saintly view of her.

Originally posted by Lalla Meriem@Apr 23rd, 2004 - 3:15 am Actually, most people in the "know" on both sides of the Diana/Charles "war" agree that it was Diana who took lovers outside the marriage first not Charles. Whether or not he pushed her out of his bed and affections therby contributing to her need to seek attention elsewhere is another matter.

One thing is certain Diana needed to be the absolute center of the world to each man she was involved with very few men can provide this - even the ordinary men - and especially not The Prince of Wales or a busy physican. She expected a man&#39;s whole world to stop for her and then revolve around her. Charles expected a similar devotion but not merely to himself. Their marriage was doomed before it began because Charles did not love her and wouldn&#39;t love her in the passionate since that couples require and because Diana was too emotionally needy and insecure. They placed absolute unrealistic demands and responsibilities on each other before they were ever married. They were simply not compatible.

I think Camilla is Charles&#39; soul mate and I think it was Hasnat Khan who was Diana&#39;s. Dodi was just a means to make Hasnat jealous. It would have never ended the way Mohammed Al-Fayed says it would have.

Charles and Diana are equally to blame for their disasterous marriage as are all of the many extra marital lovers that were included. There were many more than the mere 3 people Diana claims was in there marriage. Charles and Camilla and Janet while Diana had the bodygaurd, Hewit, Hoare, rugby boy, Khan, ect.... There were lots of people involved but it only took two to end the marriage, and they were the two who took the vows.

What I can&#39;t understand is why people think the fault only rests with Charles and Camilla. I can&#39;t fathom that and I am the biggest Diana fan in the world. Albeit, one with a realistic not perfect saintly view of her.

I&#39;m not blaming Charles. As I said before, I still don&#39;t have an opinion about it. I think it can be the fault of both(Charles and Diana), or it can be the fault of one of them. And I understand that some people would think that the lovers had their share too. What I&#39;m saying is that IF Charles&#39; side is to be blamed, he should be more blamed than Camilla(or alone). I don&#39;t see a way to the fault to be more Camilla&#39;s than Charles&#39;.

How about this possibility ... Charles and Diana should never have gotten married in the first place as they were not compatible, and the marriage was doomed from the start. Even if Charles had not resumed a relationship with Camilla in 86 or that Diana had several affairs, they were not capable of maintaing a successful relationship. a true marriage. Both were extremely needy, and neither could provide the emotional support the other needed.

Originally posted by Marlene@Apr 23rd, 2004 - 9:09 pm How about this possibility ... Charles and Diana should never have gotten married in the first place as they were not compatible, and the marriage was doomed from the start.* Even if Charles had not resumed a relationship with Camilla in 86 or that Diana had several affairs,* they were not capable of maintaing a successful relationship. a true marriage.* Both were extremely needy, and neither could provide the emotional support the other needed.

I agree Marlene. That is exactly the point. It really doesn&#39;t matter how many affairs either of the two would have had or did have. The fact is that they would have either sought comfort in other individuals while legally remaining husband and wife or simply being faithful but distant and of course, completely miserable. Charles and Diana would never have had a successful marriage. Marlene is extremely correct in saying that both Charles and Diana were very needy during their marriage. Charles needed what Diana couldn&#39;t provide. Diana was far too young, inexperienced with adult life and really life in general, and needy herself to really be a good partner for her husband. Charles couldn&#39;t help Diana with her many problems either, because he really didn&#39;t have the emotional reserve to deal with such things and had problems of his own. Charles eventually retreated to Camilla who apparently was able to fill his void. Diana, had lovers in order to fill the emotional void that she had. These two people would never have been able to communicate. It was an impossible union in the very beginning for so many reasons. I could go on and on, but honestly almost everyone here knows this story and you&#39;ve most likely heard it all before.

Like, Marlene, I must say this relationship was in fact always doomed. It was never going to be a great love story to last until the end of time.

__________________
Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size. -Virginia Woolf

It was very reasonable what you 2 just said&#33; I find quite possible the fact that you&#39;re right. And in that way, it&#39;s not Camilla&#39;s fault either. I know that I&#39;m starting to sound like "Camila&#39;s biggest fan". And that&#39;s not what it is, I only have a vague opinion about her. But I think that some people are quite unfair with her in this specific topic.

One commentator referred to the Wales marriage as a case of two emotionally needy people coming together and both finding that they only had demands to make. I think that sums it up as well as anything.

What a shame that Diana was so immature, though. If Charles really thought he had given up Camilla but was deep down still holding onto the possibility of going back to her, Diana&#39;s jealousy and hostility gave him the very excuse he was looking for. If she&#39;d been a few years older and a bit more worldly wise, she might have been able to avoid doing that.

It&#39;s ironic that for being honest enough to say that he wanted to marry a divorced woman and refusing to take her as his mistress while getting involved in a sham of a marriage with someone "suitable," the Duke of Windsor went through abdication and a lifetime of exile. Prince Charles, while going through the suitable marriage and continuing to keep Mrs Parker Bowles in his life, even if it was in the background for a while, gets to keep his position and will be King if he outlives the Queen. Honesty doesn&#39;t pay in those circles.

I think in a day and age when very few people have lasting relationships Charles and Camilla should be left alone to get on with their private lives. As all members of the Royal Family should. However what I object to is Camilla being present at official engagements. If this is going to be the case there should be a public statement saying so. Also, Camilla would be mad to accept the title of Princess of Wales. Diana&#39;s death ensured her saint like image. Even if it wasn&#39;t true in life.
Emma Louise

Originally posted by Elspeth@Apr 24th, 2004 - 12:54 am One commentator referred to the Wales marriage as a case of two emotionally needy people coming together and both finding that they only had demands to make. I think that sums it up as well as anything.

What a shame that Diana was so immature, though. If Charles really thought he had given up Camilla but was deep down still holding onto the possibility of going back to her, Diana&#39;s jealousy and hostility gave him the very excuse he was looking for. If she&#39;d been a few years older and a bit more worldly wise, she might have been able to avoid doing that.

It&#39;s ironic that for being honest enough to say that he wanted to marry a divorced woman and refusing to take her as his mistress while getting involved in a sham of a marriage with someone "suitable," the Duke of Windsor went through abdication and a lifetime of exile. Prince Charles, while going through the suitable marriage and continuing to keep Mrs Parker Bowles in his life, even if it was in the background for a while, gets to keep his position and will be King if he outlives the Queen. Honesty doesn&#39;t pay in those circles.

why you called Diana as immature&#33; i dont like it&#33; i would takes off your posts i knew it&#33;

many people knew still as Princess Diana when Diana attend at public and evening many people called her as Diana,Princess of Wales or Princess Diana because she was so popular Princess&#33; please dont called her as immature&#33; alright&#33;

Sara Boyce

p.s. Camilla not fit for Queen and she not takes Diana&#39;s title when she got married to Prince Charles peroid&#33; many people would getting heartbreaken about reminded of famous Princess Diana lots but wanted still as Princess of Wales lots but Camilla have no Royal titles&#33;

Originally posted by Georgia@May 1st, 2004 - 3:14 am I think in a day and age when very few people have lasting relationships Charles and Camilla should be left alone to get on with their private lives. As all members of the Royal Family should. However what I object to is Camilla being present at official engagements. If this is going to be the case there should be a public statement saying so. Also, Camilla would be mad to accept the title of Princess of Wales. Diana&#39;s death ensured her saint like image. Even if it wasn&#39;t true in life.
Emma Louise

It is common knowledge that Camilla has said that she would prefer to take no title at all. let alone be Princess of Wales.

I must say that I really feel sorry for the poor girl William marries. Is she also going to be considered unfit to step into Saint Diana&#39;s shoes and be Princess of Wales?

__________________Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.

If Charles marries Camilla, which they should do if they WANT to, she is entitled to his titles - including Princess of Wales. Diana was not the first, nor will she be the last, "Princess of Wales" &#33; Everybody wants to blame Charles, Camilla, and Diana for everything that has happened. I suggest looking no further than the previous 2 generations to find the roots to all of their misery&#33; True, they are all three responsible for their actions - but what a load of baggage to start out with&#33; I&#39;m sure none of them would do it all exactly the same if given a second chance. Sad thing is - there are no second chances - only new beginnings. If Charles and Camilla can find some happiness in the years they have left (whether others think they are deserving or not shouldn&#39;t and doesn&#39;t matter&#33 then more power to them&#33; We ALL :o make mistakes&#33; How&#39;s about a little love and forgiveness? :flower: Diana&#39;s memory can be better served than by throwing stones at Camilla and Charles&#33; Ok, I&#39;m done (for now). :P

why you called Diana as immature&#33;&nbsp; i dont like it&#33; i would takes off your posts i knew it&#33;
many people knew still as Princess Diana when Diana attend at public and evening many people called her as Diana,Princess of Wales or Princess Diana because she was so popular Princess&#33; please dont called her as immature&#33; alright&#33;

I&#39;ll call her immature if that&#39;s what I think she was. You&#39;re entitled to your opinion, of course, but please remember that the rest of us are also entitled to our opinions. Disagreeing with someone&#39;s opinion is one thing; telling them not to post opinions that you don&#39;t like is something else again and, IMO, not appropriate in an open discussion. This is the board to discuss the British royal family, not a board dedicated to praising Diana.

why you called Diana as immature&#33;*&nbsp; i dont like it&#33; i would takes off your posts i knew it&#33;
many people knew still as Princess Diana when Diana attend at public and evening many people called her as Diana,Princess of Wales or Princess Diana because she was so popular Princess&#33; please dont called her as immature&#33; alright&#33;

I&#39;ll call her immature if that&#39;s what I think she was. You&#39;re entitled to your opinion, of course, but please remember that the rest of us are also entitled to our opinions. Disagreeing with someone&#39;s opinion is one thing; telling them not to post opinions that you don&#39;t like is something else again and, IMO, not appropriate in an open discussion. This is the board to discuss the British royal family, not a board dedicated to praising Diana.

I support you 100%&#33; You have the right to have ANY opinion and to talk about it&#33; Keep doing it&#33; :flower:

Originally posted by nivek517@May 1st, 2004 - 1:55 pm I suggest looking no further than the previous 2 generations to find the roots to all of their misery&#33;&nbsp;

Would you care to elaborate on that??

Lets, just for fun, analyse the protagonists

1. HM The Queen
Thrown into the role of sovereign at a young age when her children were still
toddlers. She had not expected to be queen for a number of years and had
to juggle the duties of a mother with those of Queen.

2. HRH Prince Phillip
The youngest child of disfunctional parents who separated when he was still
a child. Made a career of the Royal Navy which he was forced to give up
when his father-in-laws health began to fail.

3. HM The Queen Mother
A woman who became bitter when her husband died young and forever after
blamed her sister in law the Duchess of Windsor despite the fact that her
husband was a chain smoker.

4. Earl Mountbatten of Burma
The machinations of this man are probably more to blame than anyone. He
was the one who, firstly, pushed Charles towards his own granddaughter &
then told him that Camilla was OK to sleep with but that he couldn&#39;t marry her

5. The Spencers
This family have been determined to have one of their own as Princess of
Wales for centuries. With the help of Lady Fermoy, who had the ear of HM
The Queen Mother, nothing was going to stop them this time.

__________________Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.

Originally posted by nivek517@May 1st, 2004 - 12:55 am If Charles marries Camilla, which they should do if they WANT to, she is entitled to his titles - including Princess of Wales. Diana was not the first, nor will she be the last, "Princess of Wales" &#33; Everybody wants to blame Charles, Camilla, and Diana for everything that has happened. I suggest looking no further than the previous 2 generations to find the roots to all of their misery&#33; True, they are all three responsible for their actions - but what a load of baggage to start out with&#33; I&#39;m sure none of them would do it all exactly the same if given a second chance. Sad thing is - there are no second chances - only new beginnings. If Charles and Camilla can find some happiness in the years they have left (whether others think they are deserving or not shouldn&#39;t and doesn&#39;t matter&#33 then more power to them&#33; We ALL :o make mistakes&#33; How&#39;s about a little love and forgiveness? :flower: Diana&#39;s memory can be better served than by throwing stones at Camilla and Charles&#33; Ok, I&#39;m done (for now). :P

i dont believe your posts that digusting&#33; i read yours&#33; but i got groans already&#33; but Camilla is not Royals&#33; but Princess Diana is no longer of Royal Family but many people known as Diana,Princess of Wales or Princess Diana have approve from HM Queen 2 im not like your posts&#33;

:order: :order: :order:
This is an important reminder: Everybody does not need to agree with each other, but everybody does need to be civil and respectful of each other&#39;s opinons.

Some people may not like Camilla or by the same token, Diana, and you may not agree with what they have to say about either of these ladies or Charles, and no one is demanding that you do, but it is absolutely unnecessary and absolutely not tolerated here that you insult their opinons.

Calling somebody&#39;s opinion "disgusting" or commenting in your post that they should&#39;ve have written what they did is not and will not be tolerated here.

I think some people misunderstood what I meant when I said Diana&#39;s death ensured her saint like image. I didn&#39;t mean she was a saint, just that a lot of people see her like that and Charles and Camilla will always be in her shadow. Which by the way I think is a shame especially as Diana and Charles were divorced when she died in Paris with her boyfriend. No one can take away the fact that Diana was an amazing part of the Royal Family. She kept them in the public eye but Charles is also a fantastic Prince with great ideas to take the monarchy forward.

Originally posted by Elspeth@Apr 24th, 2004 - 12:54 am It&#39;s ironic that for being honest enough to say that he wanted to marry a divorced woman and refusing to take her as his mistress while getting involved in a sham of a marriage with someone "suitable," the Duke of Windsor went through abdication and a lifetime of exile. Prince Charles, while going through the suitable marriage and continuing to keep Mrs Parker Bowles in his life, even if it was in the background for a while, gets to keep his position and will be King if he outlives the Queen. Honesty doesn&#39;t pay in those circles.

How right you are. It seems it is a system that does not reward integrity. see what Charles gets away with.

Originally posted by lori+May 1st, 2004 - 9:09 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lori @ May 1st, 2004 - 9:09 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Elspeth@Apr 24th, 2004 - 12:54 am It&#39;s ironic that for being honest enough to say that he wanted to marry a divorced woman and refusing to take her as his mistress while getting involved in a sham of a marriage with someone "suitable," the Duke of Windsor went through abdication and a lifetime of exile. Prince Charles, while going through the suitable marriage and continuing to keep Mrs Parker Bowles in his life, even if it was in the background for a while, gets to keep his position and will be King if he outlives the Queen. Honesty doesn&#39;t pay in those circles.

How right you are. It seems it is a system that does not reward integrity. see what Charles gets away with. [/b][/quote]
i really groans twice&#33; already&#33; but Camilla not part of Royal Family&#33; if divorcees cant married again that it&#33;

Sara,
You obviously aren&#39;t aware that there are changes afoot in the Church of England which will allow divorcees to remarry with the blessing of the church. As, in the eyes of the church, Charles is considered a widower and his involvment with Camilla did not cause the failure of her marriage they would be allowed to marry in church.

Also if the separation of church and state comes about, as has been proposed, there would be no impediment on his becoming King.

__________________

__________________Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.